|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » Global warming one big hoax?

Default Global warming one big hoax?

May 3rd, 2007, 09:35
There ARE proofs for evolution, like fossils and their order in the layers of earth. Only creationists and their friends, the "intelligent designers", say there is no proof, just because they don't understand them.
Hindukönig is offline

Hindukönig

Hindukönig's Avatar
SasqWatch

#21

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halle/Saale (Germany)
Posts: 264

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 09:43
The fossil layers as such does not exist, and those fossils which have been found, do nothing to prove evolution!! If there were proofs, it would no longer be a THEORY, and that's all it is. Do a search on the probability mathematics of evolution; it's close to 1 over infinity!!

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#22

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,616
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 10:21
Um, you should read some stuff about evolution. The fossils are the _reason_ we have this theory now.
BTW, in science evolution is treated as a fact. The _theory_ of evolution on the other side describes the mechanics how the evolution works - for example Darwin's theory is: the fittest survives.
Hindukönig is offline

Hindukönig

Hindukönig's Avatar
SasqWatch

#23

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halle/Saale (Germany)
Posts: 264

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 11:23
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
The fossil layers as such does not exist, and those fossils which have been found, do nothing to prove evolution!! If there were proofs, it would no longer be a THEORY, and that's all it is. Do a search on the probability mathematics of evolution; it's close to 1 over infinity!!
Biologists all over the world agree that evolution is pretty much unquestionable - there is more than enough proof that evolution takes place. It is not a theory. What is a theory, or better theories, is how evolution works - the exact mechanisms of evolution are not known to us in every tiny detail. That is a farily big difference.

It's kinda sad that groups like the creationists are still doubting it. The "creationist probability" that you're bringing forward as an argument is deeply flawed. It is based on the believe that an evolutionary process consists of a long sequence of events that leads to a particular outcome. But that is wrong - an evolutionary process has a multitude of results… not one particular.
To simply it a bit: Imagine someone would give you a dice and tell you to roll it 100 times and write down the numbers that you rolled. After you did that a creationist would look at the sequence of numbers and tell you that the chance that this particular sequence of numbers would occur is so small that it is minuscule.
Fact is however that you were never aiming at rolling this particular sequence of numbers - therefore the creationist argument is deeply flawed and in no way scientific. The chance that this particular sequence of numbers would occur is as high as that of any other possible sequence of numbers to occur. It's the same with evolution.
Last edited by Ionstormsucks; May 3rd, 2007 at 11:32.
Ionstormsucks is offline

Ionstormsucks

Ionstormsucks's Avatar
Major Villain

#24

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 760

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 12:06
On the other hand, the human race as a whole contradicts evolution. Oh, sure, we've evolved physically, but we still fight over the same pathetic causes we did 10.000 years ago. "It's mine!", "No it's mine!", "Give it here!".. bang, smack, there we go. Basic instincts do not evolve whatsoever it seems.

DNA evolves, of that I think there is no actual doubt, but what is evolution really? To most it means making progress, and in this regard there is no evolution. Animals and humans alike still have the same limited instincts and reactions we did ages ago.

At any rate, back on topic. I feel the US has slightly more responsibility right now than the rest, because George W. Bush decided to withdraw from the Kyoto agreement and increase pollution only a few years ago. We all need to get back on track and tighten the grip so we can create a realistic plan on how much to reduce pollution per year in the near future.
Maylander is offline

Maylander

SasqWatch

#25

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bergen
Posts: 5,655
Send a message via MSN to Maylander

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 12:23
Originally Posted by Maylander View Post
At any rate, back on topic. I feel the US has slightly more responsibility right now than the rest, because George W. Bush decided to withdraw from the Kyoto agreement and increase pollution only a few years ago. We all need to get back on track and tighten the grip so we can create a realistic plan on how much to reduce pollution per year in the near future.
Well, the problem is that most politicians give a damn about pollution. Pollution has nothing do to with global warming (in their eyes). After all were talking about Co2 here which is an absolutely natural product. Therefore the political discussion is very much focussing on the Co2 reduction. As I mentioned before I consider this to be a problem since the easiest way to reduce Co2 is nuclear power. I mean what are we gonna tell out children? "Guys, the good news is that we saved you from global warming - the bad news is all the nuclear waste that you'll have to get rid of?" Believe me, it will take us a looooooong time until alternative energy sources will produce enough energy to replace our traditional energy sources.

On the other hand, the human race as a whole contradicts evolution. Oh, sure, we've evolved physically, but we still fight over the same pathetic causes we did 10.000 years ago. "It's mine!", "No it's mine!", "Give it here!".. bang, smack, there we go. Basic instincts do not evolve whatsoever it seems.

DNA evolves, of that I think there is no actual doubt, but what is evolution really? To most it means making progress, and in this regard there is no evolution. Animals and humans alike still have the same limited instincts and reactions we did ages ago.
You have to be careful with "basic instincts," because that is an aspect that belongs to the field of sociology as much as it belongs to biology. Sociobiologists would argue that the fact that human beings are still influenced by their basic instincts backs up the model of evolution.
The approach that evolution means progress in terms of morality is a very philosophical one. But evolution in a scientific sense mean to adapt and serves survivability.
Last edited by Ionstormsucks; May 3rd, 2007 at 12:35.
Ionstormsucks is offline

Ionstormsucks

Ionstormsucks's Avatar
Major Villain

#26

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 760

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 12:41
Evolution is not 'unquestionable'!! It is a massively flawed THEORY and by definition, can NEVER be a fact!! I have studied this in great depth!! I hold several degrees and I don't simply accept the fabricated arguments evolutionists use. However, this needs to be a separate thread.

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#27

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,616
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 12:44
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Evolution is not 'unquestionable'!! It is a massively flawed THEORY and by definition, can NEVER be a fact!! I have studied this in great depth!! I hold several degrees and I don't simply accept the fabricated arguments evolutionists use. However, this needs to be a separate thread.
Cool, I'm in for it…
Ionstormsucks is offline

Ionstormsucks

Ionstormsucks's Avatar
Major Villain

#28

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 760

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 14:22
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Evolution is not 'unquestionable'!! It is a massively flawed THEORY and by definition, can NEVER be a fact!! I have studied this in great depth!! I hold several degrees and I don't simply accept the fabricated arguments evolutionists use. However, this needs to be a separate thread.
And this is exactly my point from before. We start off discussing Global Warming and before long we are debating whether something that ought to be as clearly acceptable as gravity or Newton's 3 laws is indeed fact or theory.

Nothing ever gets done by mere words. As Moriendor already said:
Originally Posted by Moriendor
Now on the topic of global warming being a hoax or not… who really cares? What do we have to lose if we reduce the carbon dioxide emissions?
Even if it turns out that Global Warming isn't caused by humans after all (or isn't even a problem at all), then I'm pretty certain that just going outside and taking a deep breath without starting to cough and choke on the smog cloud that most major cities are covered by nowadays, would justify the investments.

Regarding the article brought forth by Magerette I have to say that apart from a severe case of ego boosting ("I have a Ph.D. from here and another Ph.D. from there") and a good yell against the hostile reception any counter theory to accepted consensus generally receives (not a bad point by the way), then he doesn't produce one tiny ounce of counter evidence to the Global Warming consensus. He says that a consensus isn't necessarily right, which is true … but then again a consensus isn't necessarily wrong either, a point which he gracefully skips and moves on. An interesting read, but as a personal view on the science community in general and not as science in itself.

"Chess in particular had always annoyed him. It was the dumb way the pawns went off and slaughtered their fellow pawns while the kings lounged about doing nothing that always got to him; if only the pawns united, maybe talked the rooks around, the whole board could've been a republic in a dozen moves." - Commander Vimes in Thud! by Terry Pratchett
fatBastard() is offline

fatBastard()

fatBastard()'s Avatar
Hello, I'm a Zombaholic

#29

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Just outside of Copenhagen
Posts: 778

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 14:28
I would like to point out that no matter what our actions are, the earth is in no danger. We might endanger ourselves, but not the earth. It was here long before us, and will be here long after us. Even after a nuclear war, we might put a couple dents in her, but nothing she couldn't handle. Life will persist, and the face of the world will change, but nothing she would find significant in the long run. Hell, she might even be happy we killed each other off. Looking at it that way, it is our civic duty to engage in nuclear war.
roqua is offline

roqua

roqua's Avatar
Sentinel

#30

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 474

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 14:50
That's true. The planet itself will be restored in time, whether it takes ten thousand years or a million. It heals slowly, but surely. In this regard, I like the saying:

"To say that humans are insignificant, is to give ourselves credit".

I think I heard it in Heroes of Might & Magic 4.
Maylander is offline

Maylander

SasqWatch

#31

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bergen
Posts: 5,655
Send a message via MSN to Maylander

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 15:32
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Evolution is not 'unquestionable'!! It is a massively flawed THEORY and by definition, can NEVER be a fact!! I have studied this in great depth!! I hold several degrees and I don't simply accept the fabricated arguments evolutionists use. However, this needs to be a separate thread.
Yeah, start one. I need a good laugh.

Creationists. Hah.
Hindukönig is offline

Hindukönig

Hindukönig's Avatar
SasqWatch

#32

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halle/Saale (Germany)
Posts: 264

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 17:02
Originally Posted by Hindukönig View Post
Creationists. Hah.
I get a good laugh out of Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Java Man.
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#33

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 18:11
Originally Posted by fatBastard() View Post
And this is exactly my point from before. We start off discussing Global Warming and before long we are debating whether something that ought to be as clearly acceptable as gravity or Newton's 3 laws is indeed fact or theory.

Nothing ever gets done by mere words.
On the contrary, words are what has sparked this whole debate. And words are one of the most malleable media available. They can be twisted and manipulated to prove almost any point. I think it is wise to distrust them.


Regarding the article brought forth by Magerette I have to say that apart from a severe case of ego boosting ("I have a Ph.D. from here and another Ph.D. from there") and a good yell against the hostile reception any counter theory to accepted consensus generally receives (not a bad point by the way), then he doesn't produce one tiny ounce of counter evidence to the Global Warming consensus. He says that a consensus isn't necessarily right, which is true … but then again a consensus isn't necessarily wrong either, a point which he gracefully skips and moves on. An interesting read, but as a personal view on the science community in general and not as science in itself
Thanks for taking the time to read the article fB. I agree Dr. Ball is emphasizing his credentials a bit defensively, but I also think he does so in order for his opinion not to be dismissed as irrelevant, which of course, it is anyway. I agree that other than saying he feels all the data so far can be explained by normal climate variation, that he does not introduce any proofs.

If you would like a little more detailed argument, this one from the former editor of the New Scientist magazine, Nigel Calder(once again, my Bold):

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year…

..Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.


As I said earlier, I don't feel that I have the knowledge or expertise in the field to determine which side is right or wrong. Pollution is a serious issue and needs to be addressed. I think most people realize the need, but are hazy on just how to go about it. Unfortunately opportunists with their own agenda, like Mr. Gore, are only too willing to make use of their guilt. If you think that governments and U.N. committees and politicians are supporting the theory of global warming because they altruistically want to help the planet, I would suggest you try to find any other example of their altruism. It's about power, control, votes, and MONEY, IMnotsoHO.

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch

#34

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 18:28
Somehow between movies, news reports, and school, my 9yr old Grandson came to me the other night upset and unable to sleep because he was worried about global warming and was the ocean flooding half the world.

I couldn't find the right words at first to comfort him. I couldn't look at him and say it will never happen. I did ease his mind and he got to sleep. But maybe the powers that be, and all of us as adults on this planet need to have a 9 year old look you in the eye and say he is scared and ask what should we do. I still don't have a good answer.

Bart and Corwin should just admit that when it gets down to it, I will have the final say.
Cm is offline

Cm

Cm's Avatar
Sentinel of Light

#35

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Missouri USA
Posts: 2,131
Send a message via Skype™ to Cm

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 20:30
Originally Posted by Cm View Post
But maybe the powers that be, and all of us as adults on this planet need to have a 9 year old look you in the eye and say he is scared and ask what should we do. I still don't have a good answer.
Great point, Cm. Kids certainly aren't stupid, are they? From their point of view, it must make sense to be scared.

I would offer your grandson candor, perspective, comfort and hope for the future. Earthquakes, tornados, lightning…there's a lot that can go wrong, and children have to come to terms with all of that stuff eventually. Global warming is something else to add to that list.

What are the chances that all these calamities will really happen? Enough for concern, I would say. Beyond that, the picture just isn't clear, not yet. In the meantime a volcano could explode somewhere and pollute the planet a lot worse in just a matter of hours. Or a meteor could strike. Those are real possibilities.

Your grandson needs to find a way to understand all of that and not lose sleep over it. Maybe you could start by explaining why you don't. You can assure him that science doesn't completely agree with Al Gore (They didn't agree with him when he claimed to have invented the Internet, either).

He's right about some things, though. Somebody somewhere should develop new ways to utilize solar, geothermal and wind power or harness the power of the ocean (its movement and temperature variations). All it would take to solve global warming would be a discovery of a newer, significantly-better kind of battery power.

When I was a kid, they assurred us that we'd all be zipping around in jet packs by now! What's up with these scientists? Someone should give them a swift kick in the pants. I want my jet pack!
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#36

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 21:52
I completely agree, Squeek. It's sad that children who are so vulnerable to the fears and uncertainties of the adult world, should be frightened at the prospect of growing up in the world they live in.

When CM and I were kids, as I'm sure she remembers, we lived through countless Air Raid Drills, learned about fallout shelters, radiation, and how to hide under our desks if they "dropped the bomb". I don't think the fears instilled then can ever truly disappear. But it made Fallout very believable

It's a shame that in our lifetime we have seen so little progress toward a sane world.

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
Last edited by magerette; May 4th, 2007 at 05:34.
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch

#37

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929

Default 

May 4th, 2007, 11:22
Originally Posted by magerette View Post
It's a shame that in our lifetime we have seen so little progress toward a sane world.
While I am of course sorry to hear that a child is scared by the consequences of global warming that climate experts predict, I also think that fear has become a necessary requirement for change. People are fucking stupid. If you tell them, "Guys, the consequences of climate change might not be as bad as predicted, and anyway we're not quite sure if reducing our emission of Co2 will change anything, but it makes sense that we stop polluting our planet," then they will think, "It can't be that bad," and then they'll go out and buy the biggest car possible. But if you fear them by telling them of floods, droughts, hurricanes, etc. then they'll listen - it's sad, but true.

The discussion about global warming vividly shows how stupid humanity really is. There are certain things people just don't want to hear. One of these things is that they are powerless. After all we're not discussing if global warming exists, we're discussing if it's manmade or not. If the consensus is wrong it just means that we won't be able to do anything against global warming, it does not mean that our atmosphere won't heat up. Somehow I think it might be a good idea to take into account this possibility…
Ionstormsucks is offline

Ionstormsucks

Ionstormsucks's Avatar
Major Villain

#38

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 760

Default 

May 4th, 2007, 18:10
ISS wrote:
The discussion about global warming vividly shows how stupid humanity really is. There are certain things people just don't want to hear. One of these things is that they are powerless. After all we're not discussing if global warming exists, we're discussing if it's manmade or not.
I would be the last to disagree with any argument advancing the incredible stupidity of humanity—that is a given

Pollution is without argument man-made. My problem about global warming(other than Gore) is that I wonder why the people who are behind it are…so...behind it.Could it be because it gives them importance and power?

I would be fine with the whole thing if I believed that it would indeed address the largest source of pollutants—Big Bucks Industry—and force compliance with basic, commonsense anti-pollution regulations.

These types of regulations can indeed work—you have only to travel to Mexico City to see the difference in air quality between a regulated environment in the U.S. and an environmental free-for-all.

And no logical person could say it makes sense to depend on a non-renewable power source that is controlled by a hostile regime.

Where my conditioned distrust of government and politicians kicks in is how the GW proponents plan to do their regulation. Third world countries, individual consumers—yes, they need to address the issue on many levels. But I wonder how effective all this feel-good save the world environmentalism will be when dealing with the main polluters of our planet. The big companies will cry,moan,bribe and lie as they always have done, saying that the regs will drive up prices(which they will, because there will be no question of absorbing the costs rather than passing them on to the consumers.)

In the end, my fear is that my entire life will be legislated and taxed into a politically correct "Green" state, and the real criminals will get a slap on the wrist.

Color me paranoid, but this is pretty much how things seem to work in the real world.

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch

#39

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929

Default 

May 4th, 2007, 19:43
Originally Posted by Ionstormsucks View Post
The discussion about global warming vividly shows how stupid humanity really is.
Back in school there was a science teacher who tried his best to explain scientific theories, even the ones he didn't completely understand. Looking back, I'd say he was probably a pretty good guy. But he epitomized what can go wrong with science.

Some of the theories we studied back then eventually turned out to be flawed or altogether wrong. They seemed right to most people at the time, and he would defend them. Whenever he felt backed into a corner, trying to answer difficult questions about them, he would look the asker right in the eye and assure him that, "greater minds understand."

Some people treat facts the way others treat religious beliefs. They get self-righteous about it. Normally, that guy would never be so rude as to question anyone's intelligence. But he made exceptions whenever he felt someone really deserved it.

That teacher rejected reasonable — and sometimes correct — points of view in order to defend what he thought were valuable scientific truths. Forrest Gump's Mama sometimes said, "Stupid is as stupid does." I imagine greater minds probably understand that too.
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#40

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » Global warming one big hoax?
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:19.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch